I am saying that neither the Creed nor the Councils condemned the filioque which was part of the Latin theological pardigm.

Pope Leo III (died 816) forbade the use of the filioque clause and ordered that the original version of the Nicene Creed be engraved on silver tablets in both Greek and Latin and displayed at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome so that his decision would not be overturned in the future.

Obviously Pope Leo did not think that he and the bishops and the priests were so betrayed by the Latin language that they could not understand the Creed unless they inserted the filioque.

Yawn. Just because Pope Leo II opposed altering the creed, that does not mean that he opposed the theology of the filioque. Try again Father Ambrose.

Oh, he was making a theological statement alright. Do you remember his own words which he had engraved on the silver plates?

"Haec Leo posui amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei"

"I, Leo, have placed these for love and protection of the orthodox faith."

Totally out of context.

His concern was the proper papal concern at that moment with the Greeks yelling in his ear. His concern was unity...

so he is the real Father of Anglicanism, where everything, including True and Orthodoxy, are sacrificed for "unity?"

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

[Can you show me where Latin has been condemned as heretical by the Greeks? ...maybe the Slavs? ...any other language of the liturgy perhaps?

And yet the 1054 Bull of Excommunication issued by the Roman Church formally accuses the Orthodox of heresy, of "cutting off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son..."

You'll find this is the text of the Bull below.

Since then the shelves of Catholic libraries have groaned with tomes expounding the vile heresy of the Greeks and the Filioque.

The Anathema against the Orthodox for rejecting the procession of the Spirit from the Son remained in force for 900 years!! It was only in 1965 that Pope Paul annulled the anathema.

Off topic

At least with respect to my inquiry

I just find it odd that for 900 years the Vicar of Christ has punished the Orthodox by keeping them under an Anathema. We were only released from it in 1965 by Pope Paul VI.

Even the release is odd! Had Paul VI been informed that in 1965 we came to accept the procession of the Spirit from the Son, and hence the Anathema could be lifted?

1. Weren't the excommunications mutual?2. The current thinking by Catholic theologians is that when interpreted correctly, this is not an issue. Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque (not yet at that time within the Nicene Creed) as follows:

"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."[http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTMhttp://www.usccb.org/seia/filioque.shtml

2) The retaliatory excommunication was more specific, against Cardinal Humbert.

The Catholic excommunication overreached itself since in the end it was the entire Eastern Church which agreed with the Patriarch and rejected communion with the Pope. This may have been unexpected by Rome.

What is interesting is that at that time in history the Eastern Catholic segment of the Church was larger in its numbers of faithful than the Western segment. But there is no recorded instance of any one of the Catholic bishops of the East taking a stand with Rome. This, in my dimwitted estimation, would show that any notions of the need to be in communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pope were unknown in the Church at that time.

would show that any notions of the need to be in communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pope were unknown in the Church at that time.

Or would show that no one in the East held such a notion, while it could be argued to have been present somewhat in the West.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

2) The retaliatory excommunication was more specific, against Cardinal Humbert.

The Catholic excommunication overreached itself since in the end it was the entire Eastern Church which agreed with the Patriarch and rejected communion with the Pope. This may have been unexpected by Rome.

What is interesting is that at that time in history the Eastern Catholic segment of the Church was larger in its numbers of faithful than the Western segment. But there is no recorded instance of any one of the Catholic bishops of the East taking a stand with Rome. This, in my dimwitted estimation, would show that any notions of the need to be in communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pope were unknown in the Church at that time.

Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque (not yet at that time within the Nicene Creed) as follows:

"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."

So, St. Maximus wrote this at a time when the filioque had not yet been added to the Western Nicene Creed? I wonder how he would have responded to the actual alteration of the Creed?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 13 August 662) declared that it was wrong to condemn the Roman use of Filioque (not yet at that time within the Nicene Creed) as follows:

"They [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession –but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence. They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism]."

So, St. Maximus wrote this at a time when the filioque had not yet been added to the Western Nicene Creed? I wonder how he would have responded to the actual alteration of the Creed?

Not good: he told the Latins to clean up their language, although he acknowledged the problems in doing so. The Vatican focusses on the latter acknowledgement, ignore the former warning, and twist it into an endorsement. This part of the letter doesn't get quoted so much by them, as above.

"Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that 'the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.'"

In the quotation above St. Maximos is reproducing the accusation of some of the members of the Byzantine Church against the Romans, but in the next portion of the letter he explains that the Romans do not believe that the "ἐκπορεύσθαι" of the Spirit is from or through the Son, for as he explains:

"With regard to the first matter, they (the Romans) have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (αἰτίαν) of the Spirit – they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (αἰτίαν) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting (γέννησιν) and the other by procession (ἐκπόρευσιν) – but that they have manifested the progression (προϊέναι) through Him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence (οὐσίας)."

Sadly, most Westerners fail to grasp the true meaning of St. Maximos' position.

The Latins fail to grasp the fact that the terms "ekporeusis" and "proienai" have different meanings, and that the former term is reserved to the Father alone, who causes the Spirit's subsistence (i.e., His hypostasis) through procession (ekporeusis), while the latter term is a more general term that is used in connection with the Spirit's manifesting progression (proienai) not as person but as energy, which comes from the Father through the Son.

Well you are aware that Latins don't make a distinction between God's 'essense' and 'energies' right? Understanding the Latin emphasis on the divine simplicity how would this distinction between Greek terms play a role in the Western tradition expressing the consubstantial communion between Father and Son first?

Yes, having been a Latin Catholic for 18 years before my transfer to the Eastern Church, I am aware that they do not make the distinction between essence and energy, which is why they do not understand what St. Maximos is actually saying in the letter to Marinus.

something rather odd in this letter: it uses the term "Romaios" for "Latin." I don't think I've come across a post Constantine Greek document that so uses that term.

“Those of the Queen of cities have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope (Martin I), not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to theology, because it says he says that ‘the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) also from the Son.’

Dear Marlo,

For several years we created many threads on CAF on the filioque.... and we never resolved anything and we never convinced anybody of anything.

The question is just too profound for the snippety way we communicate via e-Forums.

If you want a really great and profound analysis of Saint Maximus on the filioque, then Siecienski is the man to read.....

"The Use of Maximus the Confessor’s Writing on the Filioque at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439)." A. Edward Siecienski, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation Services, 2005.

I dont want to focus on what doctrines were proclaimed, just the fact that according to you guys, councils can be voided.

Do you believe that the church had erred in the council of 869?

If you say that councils can be voided, why cant other councils be voided?

Huh?

You obviously read neither my explanation, nor the text at the links I submitted.

Council of 869 is robber council. There are more robber councils in 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th century.

Why did Rome considered 869 council as a robber one (pseudo) and applied 879 one until middle 12the century?

Quote

The following is St Maximus' Letter to Marinus as found in Migne, PG 91:136.

"Those of the Queen of Cities [Constantinople] have attacked the synodal letter of the present very holy Pope, not in the case of all the chapters that he has written in it, but only in the case of two of them. One relates to the theology [of the Trinity] and according to this, says 'the Holy Spirit also has his ekporeusis from the Son.'

The other deals with the divine incarnation. With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous evidence of the Latin Fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the study he made of the gospel of St John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause of the Spirit -- they know in fact that the Father is the only cause of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession -- but that they have manifested the procession through him and have thus shown the unity and identity of the essence.

They [the Romans] have therefore been accused of precisely those things of which it would be wrong the accuse them, whereas the former [the Byzantines] have been accused of those things it has been quite correct to accuse them [Monothelitism].

From the text it's obvious somebody made St. Maximos to think that Latins don't believe filioque as they teach it now.

It's about ekporeusis (originates, proceeds) and proienai (manifests). Are we debating filioque now? Shouldn't you open a separate thread for that?

And how come we switched from validity of the councils to the opinions of Fathers?

BTW, I'm still eager to see the text of St. Cyril of Alexandria when he confessed filioque. Though I'm not St. Maximos, I hope it should be easy for you to present it to me.

Yet, I believe the topic is the point about validity of the counsils, and why Bishop Artemije's statement about non-existence of Ravenna Statement is valid.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 12:06:15 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Energetic Procession (an Orthodox blog run by Perry Robinson and Photios Jones) is a good source of information on the "filioque."

Below is a link to an article entitled "St. Maximos the Confessor and the Filioque Doctrine" that touches on the distinction between the Spirit's eternal origination (ekporeusis) as person, which is from the Father alone, and the manifestation (phanerosis) or progression (proienai) of the Spirit's energies, which is from the Father through the Son.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

According to the abstaract of the article: "Yet I maintain that the Letter to Marinus , properly understood, provided the hermeneutical key to resolving the ancient question of the filioque , and that even in the fifteenth century there existed a school of Byzantine trinitarian theology capable of providing this interpretation. Seen as a clear explication of Maximus's own trinitarian thinking and the consensus patrum as it existed in the seventh century (i.e., the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and his eternal flowing forth through the Son), the Letter to Marinus offered the Florentine delegates, and continues to offer today, the best way of reconciling East and West and of establishing (or re-establishing) a genuinely ecumenical understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit."

Here are the accusations in the Excommunication by Cardinal Humbert and Frederic of Lorraine, Papal Exchequer at the time and future Pope.

1. they [the Greeks] sell the gift of God 2. they castrate their guests 3. they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins 4. they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world 5. they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar 6. they say that the law of Moses is accursed 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son 8. they state that leave is ensouled (animatum) 9. they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth 10. they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan 11. they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.

Here are the accusations in the Excommunication by Cardinal Humbert and Frederic of Lorraine, Papal Exchequer at the time and future Pope.

1. they [the Greeks] sell the gift of God 2. they castrate their guests 3. they rebaptize those already baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, and especially Latins 4. they claim that with the exception of the Greek Church, the Church of Christ and baptism has perished from the world 5. they allow and defend the carnal marriages of the ministers of the sacred altar 6. they say that the law of Moses is accursed 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son 8. they state that leave is ensouled (animatum) 9. they preserve the carnal cleanness of the Jews to such an extent that they refuse to baptize dying babies before eight days after birth 10. they refuse to communicate with pregnant or menstruating women and they forbid them to be baptized if they are pagan 11. they grow the hair on their head and beards, and they will not receive in communion those who tonsure their hair and shave their beards following the decreed practice (institutio) of the Roman Church.

I think it's interesting how he accuses the Greeks of holding the Mosaic Law accursed, but also of adhering to Jewish ritual purity.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

With reference to: 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the SonIs it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?

With reference to: 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the SonIs it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?

I find it silly since the Latins "cut off" the Father from having the Spirit proceed from Him alone.

PP

P.S. I did hear something about your comment stanley.

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

With reference to: 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the SonIs it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?

I find it silly since the Latins "cut off" the Father from having the Spirit proceed from Him alone.

PP

P.S. I did hear something about your comment stanley.

Obviously, the whole notice of excommunication delivered by Humbertus was a disaster and a huge mistake.

With reference to: 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the SonIs it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?

I find it silly since the Latins "cut off" the Father from having the Spirit proceed from Him alone.

I don't think that statement makes any sense at all.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

With reference to: 7. they cut off the procession of the Holy Spirit from the SonIs it true that the Greeks did ask the Latins in the area to omit the filioque from their creed and the Latins (at least some of them) complied with the request?

I find it silly since the Latins "cut off" the Father from having the Spirit proceed from Him alone.

I don't think that statement makes any sense at all.

Its just a joke......if you didnt get it sorry.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker